|
Post by tdelong1957 on May 7, 2012 18:52:14 GMT -6
Rednecks trade to Turtles Ryan Howard: 8.8M, 11M, 13.2M
Coverage is as follows: 2012: 4.8M 2013: 8M 2014: 10M Turtles trade to Rednecks Mark Buehrle: 4M Homer Bailey: .5M, .5M, .5M (option) Hector Santiago: 1.5M
|
|
|
Post by Commish on May 7, 2012 18:57:41 GMT -6
i accept
|
|
|
Post by tdelong1957 on May 7, 2012 19:04:22 GMT -6
i accept
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2012 22:33:23 GMT -6
I have an issue with the amount of coverage in this deal. Rednecks gets 2 medicocre at best players and a slightly above average SP for one of the better 1B in baseball. I understand he is hurt and will miss a chunk of this season...but to cover $18 mil the next two seasons is beyond ridiculous.
Please note, my issue with this deal is NOT the players involved but the amount of coverage in 2013 ($8 Mil) and 2014 ($10 mil). In my view this trade creates an imbalance and allows the Tightwads an advantage not in line with what he is giving up.
|
|
|
Post by hoosiergator22 on May 8, 2012 5:32:50 GMT -6
My issue is with players involved and the coverage. This is a total gift to Turtles.Buerhle is old and Bailey has never been anything. Bad enough the trade of mass for talent but then the coverage is like he's giving the player away. The coverage is a joke to say the least. The trade is bad enough on the surface but to just give away a player then pay for him the next 3 yrs is bad at best.
Also I could even understand Rednecks trying to free up some cap but how can you free up cap when you're literally paying for the player for the other owner. He's really going to be paying about the same and getting screwed on the deal too. He loses on both accounts. No way Turtle would make the reverse of this trade. No way.
Committee. Don't look at whos doing the trading but look at the facts. Don't be swayed.
|
|
|
Post by Commish on May 8, 2012 7:25:58 GMT -6
Gosh...all my players are old and nothings I remember how you bitched and cried about my trade with the team when...right now...the Team got the much better part of that deal...just remember...just b/c it is a big name player does not mean shit Sure...Ryan Howard is a big name...but achilles injuries can end people's career. He is a power hitter and that part of his body is VERY important for him to generate that power...its not like he is an average type of hitter who hits HR. So, I will say the same thing as you Pelicans...don't look at the name of the player
|
|
|
Post by Kansas Cyclones on May 8, 2012 7:32:53 GMT -6
I'm with Screamin and that I have more issues with the coverage then anything else. I can understand if he's trying to clear up cap space but that's obviously not what he's trying to do. Turtles is basically getting Howard for free. With that said Howard is aging and like Pujols is now probably out of his prime and on the decline. Both of these owner's are big boys so I don't really think we should interfere unless we see obvious tampering.
|
|
|
Post by Commish on May 8, 2012 7:56:02 GMT -6
Well seems like there is some fuss about this trade.
So we will put it to the trade committee.
You guys need to talk and make a decision, then post your decision and why.
|
|
|
Post by hoosiergator22 on May 8, 2012 9:30:55 GMT -6
As for team getting the better end. LOL yeah he did great being 0-4. You ripped him off back then. Both times as a matter of fact. This trade by having a player given to you though is the worst. I think the most coverage that should be allowed is 50%. That way it takes out all possible gifting a player
|
|
|
Post by Montreal Expos on May 8, 2012 10:04:44 GMT -6
you want coverage for this trade and all future trades to be 50% but in ARod trade talk, you wanted me to cover 14 mil of his 16 mil salary, i guess you are not good with math, but that is more than 50%
|
|
|
Post by Jersey Horde on May 8, 2012 10:15:38 GMT -6
Agreed on prefering trade review on this for the coverage reasons mentioned above.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2012 12:36:28 GMT -6
The trade committee has decided to veto this trade. Our reasoning is based upon the amount of coverage...primarily in 2013 ($8M) and 2014 ($10M). We felt the amount of coverage far exceeded the value given to the Rednecks.
This was not a unanimous decision.
|
|
|
Post by Commish on May 8, 2012 14:01:46 GMT -6
Disagree with the committee...should be an unanimous decision
|
|
|
Post by Kansas Cyclones on May 8, 2012 14:49:08 GMT -6
It pretty much was. I decided not to vote because it involved you. It was a 2-0 decision.
|
|
|
Post by Big Willie Style on May 8, 2012 17:54:51 GMT -6
Okay seriously people. The point of vetoing trades is not about whether you think the trade is fair or if you LIKE the components of the trade. The ONLY time a trade should ever be vetoed is if there is collusion. Everybody in this league is knowledable, so nobody is a beginner that is getting ripped off. If both sides are cool with the trade, the who the hell are you to tell them they are getting ripped off.
|
|
|
Post by Kansas Cyclones on May 8, 2012 18:30:32 GMT -6
Okay seriously people. The point of vetoing trades is not about whether you think the trade is fair or if you LIKE the components of the trade. The ONLY time a trade should ever be vetoed is if there is collusion. Everybody in this league is knowledable, so nobody is a beginner that is getting ripped off. If both sides are cool with the trade, the who the hell are you to tell them they are getting ripped off. That was my take on it.
|
|
|
Post by hank44 on May 8, 2012 18:57:51 GMT -6
I agree with what Big Willie said. The reasoning for the veto is pretty weak. It was a creative trade where both teams are taking a gamble. That doesn't hurt the league any.
|
|